What are the finest examples of 9/ll Truther stupidity that you've ever encountered?

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

0:33 "according to the 9/11 Commission..." The )/11 Comm. wasn't an engineering body and did nit look into the specifics of what happened in the fires﻿ at all. Moronc idea to refer to them.

0:38 "...the steel melted" - WRONG. The word "melt", "melted", or "molten", does not appear in the 9/11 Commission Report at all. No other official study claims that any steel at all melted.
---------
More errors:

Throughout: The assumtion that any part of﻿ the steel (or Al) at the stove would collapse when heated is moronic. Structural steel in a highrise is loaded to 20-30% of its load bearing capacity, the pan and the metal that it rests on to only a tiny fraction of a percent

The temperature of the flame is not the important factor that determines how hot the metal gets, only one of many.

In this experiment, nothing was measured: No temp, no load, no heat input (energy released by fire)..
------------
If anything of relevance had been measured at all, the experimenter would﻿ have found without a shadow of the doubt that the pan lost a part of its load bearing capacity, expanded, and deformed slightly during the experiment, all of which would validate all of the findings of real investigators.

Now question: Why do they put fireproofing on structural steel, but not on frying pans?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

__________________911 resource site by Mark Robertshttp://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/homeGravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Cap't "Tiffany" Bob Balsamo fits right in to your description. His latest claim? The Pentagon 757 should have exhibited "clockwise damage" in its pattern of destruction since the right wingtip hit the building first.

What a freaking moron. The plane was described as being in a left bank. This means that the aircraft was rotating counter-clockwise So Captain Bobby expects the wall to reverse the rotation of the aircraft now? When weed is legalized, they had best keep whatever Bobby is smoking illegal. There is a limit to how badly we can let people damage their brains wihtout its having negative consequences for society.

__________________No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

I wonder if Dave will pounce on you for mostly agreeing and essentially phrasing it the same way I did, namely: "Most fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion." This is what I stated I simply suspected.

Also, you've proven to be one of the more calm and civil posters I've encountered here, so we can have a productive discussion absent the invenctive, regardless of your unfortunate baseball loyalties.

I don't think I can restate it any more possible ways that I'm not contesting whether thermal expansion occurred in WTC 7, I'm questioning whether it resulted in what NIST said, since as you pointed out, thermal expansion happens in fires, why did it bring the bldg down in this one, since it's never brought a steel framed high rise down before?

My final point on this is that you are suggesting that the fires burned for 7 hours, do you actually think it burned in one location for that long? Of course it didn't so why suggest that the fires burned twice their rating, when the fire had to move around the floors to consume more fuel?

Most steel buildings are not built of sub stations and designed with large transfer beams / trusses that concentrate loads to a few columns.

I wonder if Dave will pounce on you for mostly agreeing and essentially phrasing it the same way I did, namely: "Most fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion." This is what I stated I simply suspected.

Sorry, I missed this. Tri, since RedIbis wants me to be strictly consistent, I'll make the same point: any fire in a steel framed structure will cause some heating of the steel, and any heating of the steel will cause some thermal expansion. It may be too little to cause any structural problems, in which case it's perfectly reasonable for you to ignore it because it's of no relevance to how you choose to fight the fire; it may even be too little to measure. But it's inaccurate to say that some, or most, fires in steel structures will cause thermal expansion; any and all of them will cause at least some expansion.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

That makes sense. If you were somehow able to fill it with water, it would collapse on its own...no explosives needed!

Hydro-thermite!

__________________"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

Ah, but if you could fill it with used yeast extract and spread it on toast, it would be Vegethermite!

Even better - you could spread it on bread, and it would toast it for you.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

- Nanothermite has an energy density of 1.5kJ/g
- Stochiastic thermite, perfectly packed, has a density of 4.2g/cm3.
-> energy density by volume is about 6300J/cm3

Now, to get 80J/cm2, a layer of spread nanothermite would have to be 80cm/6300 or 0.13mm = 130micron thin.
One might well argue that applying the heat directly to the toast is more efficient than the radiation a toaster applies from a few mm away, so let's be generous and say:

To get nicely toasted bread, you need to spread a layer of nanothermite 50 microns thin on it.

Have such layers of paintable nanothermite been found? Let's ask Harrit and the bunch, or rather look at page 9 of their paper:

Originally Posted by Harrit, Jones and friends

Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray).

The conclusion is inevitable:

The red-gray chips are proof of the NWO's attempt to toast bread by nefarious means!

That makes sense. If you were somehow able to fill it with water, it would collapse on its own...no explosives needed!

I think you're onto something. After you pump the place full of water, you could unleash the trained piranha to tear the place down. Or better yet, fill it full of chickens and make chicken soup, which as we know is very destructive to microbes in your body so it would probably work equally well at destroying steel beams (truther logic). Maybe that's what Silverstein meant when he said "pullet."

...Or better yet, fill it full of chickens and make chicken soup, which as we know is very destructive to microbes in your body so it would probably work equally well at destroying steel beams (truther logic). Maybe that's what Silverstein meant when he said "pullet."

I lol'ed
But it's "poulet" (Yeah, I know, truthers wouldn't know what that is )

Have you ever filled a bottle from a hose? If you can do that, you can drill a hole in a box column and spray thermite inside. Take iron oxide primer paint and mix in aluminum glitter powder (sold in paint stores) and you have sprayable thermite.

That makes sense. If you were somehow able to fill it with water, it would collapse on its own...no explosives needed!

As a window maker I can guarantee such cannot happen.
Windows are designed to keep weather out not to keep water contained
how much water would it would take to 'fill' a building and that weight involved.
Another "but surely the occupants of the building would have noticed"

As a window maker I can guarantee such cannot happen.
Windows are designed to keep weather out not to keep water contained
how much water would it would take to 'fill' a building and that weight involved.
Another "but surely the occupants of the building would have noticed"

The "weight" would be irrelevant. The outward pressure on the lobby windows would be about 600 psi. (A 10 foot x 1 inch column of water exerts ~4.4 psi at it's base).

__________________"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

Sorry to drag out a six-month-dead thread, but I had a new one come up that I hadn't heard before and I thought it was worth sharing.

I accused you tube user quez76 of being a no-planer because he brought up the "nose out" video. Here was his response:

Quote:

i never said planes didnt hit the towers, im saying it wasnt the planes the news said it was...

So this bastion of academia believes the news media used fake footage of a plane hitting the WTC......
on a day when a plane hit the WTC!

Now, I kind of thought that would be the end of it. I thought pointing out how ridiculous and devoid of any logic this is, and how this "fake" footage just happened to coincide with every one who saw the plane impact the Tower, he would fold his cards and leave the table. But no! As I was writing this, here was his response:

Quote:

what the hell are you talking about? you cant speak for what everyone saw, they dont even know what hit the buildings. one person says this, the other person says that. all im saying is there are some fake footages, why? i dont why, but there are,

Now he is completely dismissing the thousands of live people who witnessed the plane impact the building!

There is a reason I do not engage no-planers and this is it. But I have never before had a no-planer who thought planes hit the buildings! This poor individual is completely mixed up in his thought process. I thought it was worth sharing.

__________________Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump